Shameless Joe Nickel

[jakesteele]

Who knows for sure is correct, but this isn't about that. It's about which is more likely and you named some of the more likely as did Joe. At 26 minutes in the vid Joe and some others noted there are only two ways to levitate, a. to apply a counter force to gravity, b. to negate gravity altogether. Each complicates willful levitation.

And there are only two ways to jump that high and far; negate or counter. Running and jumping that distance and height is not sufficient counterforce
to achieve something of that magnitude.

What do you think about Shameless Joe's implausible plausible? Do you think it can be done with leg power alone?

 

[zooterkin]

And there are only two ways to jump that high and far; negate or counter. Running and jumping that distance and height is not sufficient counterforce
to achieve something of that magnitude.

What do you think about Shameless Joe's implausible plausible? Do you think it can be done with leg power alone?

Do what, exactly? What feat has been established as having taken place by the most contemporary reports? That's what needs to be explained, not later embellishments and exaggerations by retellers of the story.

 

[jakesteele]

And yet you included skepticism within the definition of the thing you are the sworn enemy of.
Perhaps you should think of a different name for the thing you are opposing.
How about "double standards"?

I already explained what I meant by skeptibunker. Asked and answered.

As others have pointed out, you should have continued watching the video.
Nickell posited athletic ability as a possible explanation for the claimed levitating feats of the Friar. Then a spokesman for TM came on, and said that, rather that trying to reject the idea of actual levitation, we should instead redefine science to include this concept. He does not appear to have elaborated on this suggestion: a little factual underpinning such as an explanation as to how meditation can overcome gravity, might have helped.
Is this your idea of a plausible explanation? It's certainly not mine.

And I'm not talking about TM people and never have. I'm talking about Shameless Joe's absurd explanation for the Flying Friar alleged levitation. What do you think about Shameless Joe's absurd implausible plausible?

They then went on to give a demonstration of this supposed levitation, which was clearly nothing more than hopping with the legs crossed.
What baffles me is that you slate Nickell for proposing that people were fooled by a feat of athleticism, when to so-called proof of modern-day levitation is exactly that. The followers of TM are either being fooled by obvious nonsense, or they are deliberately lying, in order to attract more recruits, and therefore more income.
Nickell's claim about the historical story of levitation is made plausible by the example in the video. What difference do you see between the two examples?

Again, my thread is about Shameless Joe's ludicrous and absurd attempt at debunking. Forget about yogis as this thread is not about that at all. What do you think about Shameless Joe's attempt at debunking? Does it sound reasonable or absurd?

 

[JayUtah]

Again, my thread is about Shameless Joe's ludicrous and absurd attempt at debunking.

But isn't the rest of your argument that this "ludicrous and absurd attempt" is representative of skepticism as a whole?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

But isn't the rest of your argument that this "ludicrous and absurd attempt" is representative of skepticism as a whole?

If you read the thread, you will see that jakesteele has backed off from almost every part of his OP.
First to go was the 'representative of the skeptical movement' claim.
Then we lost the 'skepti' part of 'skeptibunkerism'.
Now he has jettisoned almost all of the video he linked to, and insists that we only focus on about 30 seconds of a 50-minute clip.
Personally, I would be embarrassed if the greater part of my OP had been so much of a liability that I would have to pretend it never happened, but maybe I'm too sensitive.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Again, my thread is about Shameless Joe's ludicrous and absurd attempt at debunking. Forget about yogis as this thread is not about that at all. What do you think about Shameless Joe's attempt at debunking? Does it sound reasonable or absurd?

I think his explanation is reasonable, especially as there is an example of exactly what he says later on in the video you linked to. It is certainly more reasonable than claiming that faith makes you float.
Is this why you are so keen that the rest of the video be ignored, as it basically undermines your own argument?

 

[jakesteele]

But isn't the rest of your argument that this "ludicrous and absurd attempt" is representative of skepticism as a whole?

I have no idea of how you came up with that. I said that Shameless Joe is a public face of skepticism and then asked how you guys felt about that. I didn't say he was he represented skepticism as a whole. There are obviously plenty of true skeptics who don't reach so far into the absurd as Shameless Joe did.

 

[Dave Rogers]

After all, he’s out there representing you guys as one of the more prominent faces of the Skeptics’ movement. So what say you?

I didn't say he was he represented skepticism as a whole.

You seem to have a very poor memory.

Dave

 

[jakesteele]

I think his explanation is reasonable, especially as there is an example of exactly what he says later on in the video you linked to. It is certainly more reasonable than claiming that faith makes you float.
Is this why you are so keen that the rest of the video be ignored, as it basically undermines your own argument?

Shameless Joe's claim of athleticism is as farfetched as actual levitation. No human being in recorded history could even come close to what he proposes. That is just plain old debunking in the most negative sense. I don't see how you think his claim is reasonable.

 

[jakesteele]

Do what, exactly? What feat has been established as having taken place by the most contemporary reports? That's what needs to be explained, not later embellishments and exaggerations by retellers of the story.

I don't follow you at all. What do you think of Shameless Joe's ludicrous attempt at debunking? Do you think it is feasible or not?

 

[jakesteele]

And yet you included skepticism within the definition of the thing you are the sworn enemy of.
Perhaps you should think of a different name for the thing you are opposing.
How about "double standards"?

I have already explained the term 'skeptibunkerism'. I'm not the sworn enemy of skepticism in its purest form, I'm the enemy of someone who practices sloppy debunking.

As others have pointed out, you should have continued watching the video. Nickell posited athletic ability as a possible explanation for the claimed levitating feats of the Friar. Then a spokesman for TM came on, and said that, rather that trying to reject the idea of actual levitation, we should instead redefine science to include this concept. He does not appear to have elaborated on this suggestion: a little factual underpinning such as an explanation as to how meditation can overcome gravity, might have helped.
Is this your idea of a plausible explanation? It's certainly not mine.

They then went on to give a demonstration of this supposed levitation, which was clearly nothing more than hopping with the legs crossed.
What baffles me is that you slate Nickell for proposing that people were fooled by a feat of athleticism, when to so-called proof of modern-day levitation is exactly that. The followers of TM are either being fooled by obvious nonsense, or they are deliberately lying, in order to attract more recruits, and therefore more income.
Nickell's claim about the historical story of levitation is made plausible by the example in the video. What difference do you see between the two examples?

Again, for the second or third time, I'm not talking about TM yogic flying and never have. That's you doing it, not me. I would appreciate it if you didn't go so far afield and stick to the topic at hand; Shameless Joe's ludicrous explanation. What do you think of his explanation; ludicrous or reasonable?

Debunkers’ Law of the Bantered Semantic™ – quibbling over subtle differences and interpretations of a word or a phrase as a way to avoid the main topic.

 

[JayUtah]

I have no idea of how you came up with that.

I read your opening post.

I said that Shameless Joe is a public face of skepticism...

Please enlighten us on how one can be the "public face" of something without representing it. Examples would be helpful.

...plenty of true skeptics who don't reach so far into the absurd as Shameless Joe did.

Exactly how far into the absurd do you claim true skeptics reach?

 

[jakesteele]

You seem to have a very poor memory.

Dave

Not really, some people made it adamantly clear that Shameless Joe did not represent them even though they are part of the skeptic movement and Shameless Joe represents the public face of skepticism as a whole.

 

[jakesteele]

You seem to have a very poor memory.

Dave

Not really, some people claimed that Shameless Joe did not represent them even though they are part of the skeptic movement and Shameless Joe represents the public face of skepticism as a whole.

 

[jakesteele]

And yet you post on this site, which as you've said is part of the skeptics' movement. By your own logic we can conclude that Joe Nickell publicly represents either you too, or none of us.

Dave

Why on earth do you think I started this thread. I refuse to accept crap like Shameless Joe's b.s. I'm speaking out against pseudoskepticism, which sullies the reputation of the skeptics movement. He is the face people see on specials like the one linked and they come away with a skewed perception of skepticism as a whole.

Now how about you try sticking to the topic at hand and tell me concisely what your opinion is of his pathetic attempt at debunking the flying friar. No yogis allowed in your answer as they are not part of this thread.

 

[jakesteele]

I read your opening post.

Please enlighten us on how one can be the "public face" of something without representing it. Examples would be helpful.

I don't follow your drift. Joe is one of the public faces of skepticism like Shermer and Randi. I suppose you don't think they represent you either, do you?

Exactly how far into the absurd do you claim true skeptics reach?

Nonsensical question.

Stick to the topic at hand, Shamelss Joe's absurd attempt at debunking the Flying Friar. What do you think of his attempt. You already know how I feel. Let's hear it from you.

 

[JayUtah]

...Shameless Joe represents the public face of skepticism as a whole.

If he doesn't represent me or anyone else in this forum, then exactly what "whole" do you argue he represents? If he doesn't represent anyone in this forum, then why is it important that you collect the opinions of people in this forum?

 

[JayUtah]

Nonsensical question.

Then you clearly didn't understand it. You wrote

There are obviously plenty of true skeptics who don't reach so far into the absurd as Shameless Joe did.

I'm asking you to clarify the extent of "so far." Does a true skeptic reach only a little bit into the absurd? Is there any practice of true skepticism that avoids the absurd altogether? If so, what?

If necessary, I'll ask you to define "true skeptic." (I'll re-read the thread before asking.)

Stick to the topic at hand...

The topic at hand involves several premises that I'm not confident have been nailed down. It would be premature to offer a conclusion until the premises are agreed upon.

 

[steenkh]

Shameless Joe's claim of athleticism is as farfetched as actual levitation.

You must be joking! One is possible within the laws of physics, and the other is not.

No human being in recorded history could even come close to what he proposes.

That depends on whether the claimed levitation really achieved what was claimed, or whether this is a case of pious exaggeration. The flying yogis that you conveniently want to ignore, is a splendid example of how gullible people can get when faith is involved. Not only do the yogis themselves get high on a feeling of flying, but believers like the TM "physicist" rush to explain how it is possible (the answer, of course, involves "quantum").

Besides, I doubt that your knowledge of what is possible for top athletes is as accurate as you think.

 

[zooterkin]

Shameless Joe represents the public face of skepticism as a whole.

Even if he did, at one time, (which I don’t believe you’ve shown), that film was made nearly 20 years ago so is not evidence of him representing anything currently.